Tolib Rakhmonov

Image source: www.lexisnexis.com.au 

Introduction

The right to judicial protection is one of the fundamental human rights, which is enshrined at the constitutional and international levels. To ensure reliable protection of human rights and legitimate interests, the judicial system needs constant improvement. At present, domestic justice, like all state-legal spheres, is in search of new solutions. And the widespread adoption of digital technologies has become an integral part of our lives in the era of the information society. The development of digital technologies and big data has proved the prospect of introducing artificial intelligence (hereinafter AI) in the judiciary. This trend has become widespread in foreign countries, particularly in China. This blogpost discusses the pros and cons of this phenomenon and the prospects for the introduction of AI in the Uzbek judicial system.

The Opportunities of the Use of AI in Courtrooms

AI can significantly improve the quality of court proceedings by automating many routine tasks such as registration of appeals, planning of court sessions, notification of parties. Meanwhile, the potential of AI should not be limited to this because AI is also beneficial in resolving cases. Let’s take a closer look at ways to use AI in court proceedings.

  1. AI can keep court records. The court session secretary keeps the record in the court session or outside the courtroom while conducting a separate procedural action (Article 278 of the CPC). Court records have an important role in proceedings because they capture all oral arguments and testimonies during the hearings and trials. AI can draw up these court records and provide higher accuracy replacing court assistants; the funds paid as salaries to court assistants can be used to provide tech service for AI that definitely will increase the quality of the work.
  2. AI can make translation process easier. Sometimes parties do not know the language of the trial or they might be deaf-mute. Persons participating in the case who do not speak the language of proceedings are provided with the right to fully familiarize themselves with the case materials and participate in court actions through an interpreter (Article 13 of the Law “On Courts”). Furthermore, persons with hearing and speech disabilities while participating in court proceedings are provided with sign language interpreter services (Article 28 of the Law “On the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”). In these situations, it becomes necessary to involve an interpreter (sign language interpreter) in the court session. But finding an experienced interpreter (sign language interpreter) with basic legal knowledge is difficult due to the lack of qualified personnel and the insignificance of their wages. Performing the function of an interpreter by AI greatly speeds up the judicial process and reduces court expanses.
  3. AI can be used in the drafting the texts of judicial acts. Having resolved the case on the merits, the judge draws up a final act, which is called a decision or sentence. While drafting the text of the final decision, the judge may make some arithmetic, grammar and technical mistakes due to subjective factors (fatigue, lack of concentration, etc.). To avoid such cases, it is possible to delegate the function of drafting the texts of judicial acts to AI.
  4. AI can assist judges in case resolution. Before making a court decision, the judge may consult with AI on specific legal issues. This practice exists in several foreign countries. For example, Indian High Court judge Anoop Chitkara used the AI chatbot ChatGPT to summarize case law. Also, in England, judges were allowed to use artificial intelligence when writing court decisions, provided that judges guarantee the protection of the confidentiality of participants’ data in the trial and bear full personal responsibility for AI decisions. It is noteworthy that in China, judges are required to consult with AI before making a final decision. If the judges disagree with AI’s decision, they must make a written statement about it.

The use of AI greatly speeds up the judicial process, decreases court expanses, and saves judges time in resolving cases, thereby improving the quality of justice.

Can AI replace judges?

The potential of AI in resolving cases is controversial. This issue generates some discussions among specialists in this field. In December 2019, China announced that most legal disputes are being resolved by “Internet courts” that do not require citizens to appear in court. The “Smart Court” consists of non-human judges, powered by AI and allows participants to register cases online and resolve disputes via digital court sessions. This innovation will certainly save the time of participants in the trial and reduce court expanses, thereby improving access to justice.Nevertheless, AI is not able to completely replace judges for the following reasons.

Though AI and judges evaluate case merits based on a thorough, comprehensive, complete, and objective study of all the circumstances of the case, guided by the law and legal awareness, judges unlike AI evaluate evidences according to their inner conviction as well. The “inner conviction” is alien to AI because this concept involves knowledge, believe in accuracy of this knowledge, determent will to apply this knowledge, work and life experience, while AI has no ability to evaluate the database uploaded to it. The inner conviction plays a huge role in applying legal norms regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances in criminal cases. For example, mitigating circumstances include sincere repentance or active assistance in solving a crime. However, the fact that criminal helped detectives during the investigation does not mean that this criminal is actually repented. In this case the inner conviction of judge facilitates the identification of sincere repentance, while AI that lacks inner conviction cannot determine whether a person sincerely repents or not.

Moreover, the court may also recognize circumstances not provided in the article 55 of the Criminal Code as mitigating. Therefore, resolving such issues requires an individual approach and a comprehensive study of all the circumstances of the case including social and personal matters of criminals and victims. AI, obviously, can know all the laws and give a legal assessment of the case, but this is not enough to decide a person’s fate.

Dean and Head of Newcastle Law School, Professor Tania Sourdin also concurs with this statement. She notes that the task of performing many judicial functions requires human intelligence, and computer programs have yet to be developed to replace these functions or to interact with people with compassion, emotion, or agile responsiveness.

In one of the studies, AI was used to predict the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The study reveals that AI predicted the outcome of the case with an accuracy of 79 %. Of course, this result is impressive, but so far it is not enough to delegate the decision-making competence to AI. Furthermore, Dr. Nikolaos Aletras, who led the study at the University College London Computer Science, said, “We don’t see AI replacing judges or lawyers, but we think they’d find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to certain outcomes.”

Hence AI cannot completely replace judges, but it might replace judges in resolving cases that do not include disputes about law. For example, civil courts issue court writs on certain claims of the recoveree against the debtor, to recover an undisputed debt. The distinctive feature of writ proceedings is that the judge does not consider the case on its merits, since there is no dispute about the law. In this case, the AI can fully replace the judge.

Conclusion

To conclude, AI in the judicial system can reduce the routine work of judges and court assistants, accomplish other functions in courtroom. This, in turn, allows the judge to use the saved time for comprehensive resolution of cases. Furthermore, AI can replace a judge in civil and economic courts only in issuing court writs that do not include dispute resolution.

Cite as:  Tolib Rakhmonov, “Prospects for the use of artificial intelligence in the judicial system of Uzbekistan”, Uzbekistan Law Blog, 06.02.2024.